The Relevance of Truth

I just said that something is disappointing to me? Where?

I did not say that one should arbitrarily choose who’s going to moderate the discussion they are about to have. It goes without saying that it would be in one’s best interest to choose the person most suitable for the task.

And I also didn’t say that moderation should be arbitrary i.e. that moderators should moderate according to their whims. The job of a moderator is to make sure that the discussion is unfolding in accordance with a given set of rules. That’s the opposite of arbitrary.

I don’t think he invented the debating process separately from his SAM Co-op. But I wouldn’t bet on that. Either way, it’s quite possible he thought about using it in other contexts too.

I am not so sure.

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … a#p2213944

What option? Are you speaking of the option to leave the group or the option to disagree with a proposed course of action?

Either way, this seems to tackle it:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 0#p2222753

Possible.

This is what I based my opinion on:

ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop … 5#p2218713

Obviously, he’s talking about an Internet version of CHR not merely resolution debate.

Either way, you have to choose what’s allowed and what’s not allowed within a discussion (“the rules”) before you can start enforcing it (i.e. moderating the discussion) and before you can delegate that task to someone else.

That’s the first step – a very important one – that is pretty much neglected around here and elsewhere.

Google and other global players who dominate the Internet ensure that they are always the first to be found via the search engines, and because people are lazy and don’t search further, they get the most clicks, so that their oligopoly becomes ever more powerful. Market laws do not apply to them. And this has a lot of consequences.

I would very much welcome an independent, legally secured web presence of any person. It seemed to take this development in the 1990s, but the history of modernity initially also showed a pleasant development for each individual and then took a different course.

Before the turn of the millennium, it should have been ensured that the Internet did not fall prey to total control. But that was gladly avoided. Now it is too late for such a development. But as I said, I am sure that the Internet, which itself is part of modernity, will recapitulate modernity, with which it will end.

James’ Resolution Debating flowchart

I have realized something about that debate process - it isn’t about who wins or loses. It is about revealing the agreements and disagreements in a very precise way. And that does 4 things to help -

  • It removes the pride or ego issue often controlling debates
  • It reveals what issues might need further study or investigation
  • It catalogues the current state of beliefs
  • It reveals who or what can be trusted by others of similar perspective

I think that makes a serious social shift away from confusion, distrust, and feelings of hopelessness toward a more solidly reliable social environment (the opposite of what has been promoted for decades).

The reality of our immediate situation has to be relevant for literally every creature (which I suppose is what inspires depression when it knowingly cannot be assessed - that feeling of hopelessness and “what’s the use”).

So I don’t think it is necessarily about discovering the ultimate truths about anything but rather discovering the truth about what each person currently believes - their/your bubble of belief. And from that each person can better make decisions as to where and how they want to proceed. And I suppose it would reveal the current variety of methods available to accomplish whatever someone was wanting to accomplish.

I think it offers a degree of hope against the gloom of the current onslaught of Orwellian political darkness overtaking the world.

So Magnus, if you are interested, I think we could try to use this process in our discussion about the “1 = 0.999…” debate. We could try to share the “Logic Arbiter” (James’ LA in the flowchart - or what he calls “Arbitrator”). We would probably stubble through it until we get the feel but it seems a worthy effort to me.

Up for it? O:)

I agree with everything you said.

And yes, I am up for the debate. However, in order to make it worthwhile for both of us, I would suggest coming up with a set of rules that both of us deem acceptable. In other words, we have to invent a game that both of us will find useful and enjoyable to play. Of course, that game is the game of resolution debate but the devil is in the details. We need to discover the version of the game both of us want to play. The result would be a written set of rules that explain how the game is played. Once we’re done with that, we would simply . . . play the game (: And if we realize the game isn’t quite as satisfying as we thought, we could simply go back and tweak its design.

What do you think?

That is exactly what I was thinking. :slight_smile:

There are several issues we have to work out –

  • Since we are experimenting with having no single moderator - we have to have rules for “points of order” issues seeking mutual consent – how we propose them – how we resolve them.
  • Which forum to be used for each type of rules issue. I’m thinking that the debate itself can stay where it is in Science and Maths but the rules for moderating and the general idea of resolution debating are more a philosophy issue – truth and wisdom seeking. So a new thread for that – perhaps handling both the general procedure as well as mutual consent moderating.
  • The process involves documenting specific agreements and differences, so I suggest we keep those on yet another thread – editing updates – not sure which forum.
  • There is to be some kind of a categorizing of the issues – that can become very complex – perhaps on the General Resolution Debating thread. And perhaps not even attempted until we go through a trial run.

By the end (or even half way through), we should both gain more confidence in our own thoughts on the issue as well as what the points of contention are. What I suspect will happen is that most issues will end up being seen as merely wording and symbol issues (that seems to be the norm around here).

So unless you have objection I will go ahead and start a thread on the general procedure in this forum. :smiley:

Go ahead!

(d/p)

Somebody said something about a james flow chart. This is the best one you’ll find.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xu2mNIEvspE[/youtube]